Feb
26th
2017
YAAAA-MAAAA-TOOOO · 6:01am Feb 26th, 2017
Here she is in all of her glory!
But unfortunately... we have a problem. You see, I've already arbitrarily decided taht in general carriers are the ships that get the japanese names, which FYI, Yamato is Japanese. So I've intending to make it into a carrier, but I mean... come on, look at those beautiful lines, it would almost be criminal to tamper with them like that. So I have been considering just making Yamato a reverse Shinano. But...
Would that be too cliche? I mean, this is inspired by space battleship yamato, but that kinda feels like a step too far.
Is this for a story? If so, I'll definitely check it out.
As for the question, well maybe you could just apply Shinano's beam on Yamato and then use Yamato's weaponry and other parts like the bridge and such.
Also I'd like to add: I'm happy to see someone else that likes warships
4436644 Kinda surprised you haven't noticed THIS yet. I mean... it's been like 15 posts dude.
This and This for more ship stuff since that interests you.
4436651 Well I haven't seen a great deal of your posts
4436653 Welp, give it a try! Comment on the other ones if ya please. A new world has opened up to you!
Yamato must not be changed. how about make this one of the first ships built, and the rule was implemented so the ship could keep her honor.
4436656 alright then.
4436687 Eh, she would just be a carrier spine that was repurposed to be a battleship.
Hmmmmmmm. Looks like she has enough firepower to scare off most any direct confrontation. But... how does she fare against those dastardly space submarines?
Did somebody say Iskandar?
Anyways, I kind of like the idea of a successful Shinano conversion.
It seem (at least to me) that what your trying to get is something like this maybe?
shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/battleship_greatyamato.jpg
if you wondering where I get this, go to this page here, there sooo many ships there (from the Yamato universe)
...Don't touch my Yammy damnit! You cannot ruin such perfection!
4436997
4436839
4436904
4436912 Hey! If any of you are interested, I have a discord group where I post about this stuff a bit more often then I do here. Plus it's a great place for feedback. If any of you are interested, check out https://discord.gg/79fGZZa
4436912 That's similar to what I'm trying to do, but what I'm doing is a tad bit more transformative. Plus I've kinda created a style to go with this.
4436912
Hmmm... some strange fire angles there. Like the forward-most top battery looks incapable of bow-on fire except at high angles.
4437120 yeah, I plan on rasing the guns.
I'd say it could easily be a carrier; after all, a space-based carrier ship doesn't have to launch from the 'top' of the vessel, and the sides can simply be opened to allow smaller craft to leave or enter.
4437259 but for "reasons" I'd have to get rid of those big guns.
4437300
Not really, the design leaves the flanking sides of the ship pretty clear, since it doesn't appear to be built around a spindle design. As such, the sides can bear opening ports, and simply have the turrets built on said flanks deactivate when this happens within the arcs that would threaten allied craft.
That said, this is predicated on this being a sidelong view of the ship presented above, which is what it appears to be.
4437504 again, "reasons" most of them being weight. Carriers in this setting are hauling a lot of stuff, with the guns it'd be obscenely heavy. Which would slow the whole fleet in major solar engagements (Which can take months at STL speed)
4437563
Well, the big thing would be to reduce ammunition weight, leaving the guns primarily for defense and long-range support, rather than continuous fire.
There are a couple other reasons. But the main reason is just the weight. The railguns themselves are a significant weight on the ship. Fleet carriers are tasked with carrying the replacement FTL cores for their fighter fleets, but the largest ones also carry the FTL denial field generator. This would definitely be a FTLDFG carrying ship, and as such it's priority is flight, not fight.
TLDR; The tactics of the setting preserve the ww2 ship configurations.
4438098
4438256
Hmm... Well, my response would be to strip the FTL generators from the fighters - unless combat is regularly conducted at light speed or higher. Secondly, if the side mounted turrets were reduced in number, then the amount of ammunition per magazine can stay the same, while still reducing weight drastically. On an aside, it might be possible to have the front of the ship itself open, launching ships in a manner similar to firing missiles or torpedos, which would also have the benefit of costing them less fuel or power to get up to speed relative to the mother ship. It could work, though it would not be an optimal design, but the possibility is there. And, of course, not every ship is designed with perfect reason in mind throughout the process.
I mean, during WWII, the US had a sidewheel paddleboat aircraft carrier design. It was in Lake Michigan. I'm sure there were perfectly good reasons for having the design, but it's still silly and dumb to think about.
4438299 They do have launch rails. That's part of the reason why there are no carrier/battleship hybrids. Carriers are covered in holes for the entry and exiting of craft. Holes that leave gaps in their shields and armor.
The FTL cores for fighters are for the return trip. Usually a fighter will carry enough fuel for a couple in trip course changes, an hour or three of intense maneuvers worth on top of that, a week's worth of nutrients and water recycling, and one disposable (relatively speaking) FTL core. Most military ships require a FTL spine, which is why big battles are at STL, since they can't replace the spines, and if you try to FTL, the FTLDFG will damage the spine, but fighters are just small enough that they can use a FTL core... Which is kind of repairable/replaceable. Carriers usually carry no more than 3 replacements per fighter. sometimes less.
when not in a pitched battle the fighters can just FTL freely.
4438299 also, fyi, this is a side view, so those turrets are dorsally and ventrally mounted. Though I will definitely move those secondaries around, some to the side.
4438314
I figured as much, and I've been talking about the ones on the sides of the craft the whole time. The broad sides of the ship present more room than in a traditional sea-going craft, especially for additional emplacements.
I mean, you're in space, and with artificial gravity, 'up' is whatever direction you say it is.
4438316 Honestly? It's just a matter of a power to weight ratio. X ammount of gun weight needs X volume of thruster. They could have 12 guns instead of 6, but then they'd have to more than double the propulsion section, which is already going to be pretty f*cking big. Which would lead them to widen the ship overall (to prevent their engine sections being Penetrated from the front by too flat an angle) which adds more room for guns, so on so forth.
Plus, I like the way this looks.
4438447
Eh, I suppose.